Multiple protests have been held in Portland in opposition to the CRC Bridge project, which Federal Transit Administration officials yesterday praised as "forward-leaning." Photo: Stop the CRC

But many state and regional transportation agencies continue to operate as if it were still the 1980s, when highway budgets were flush, gas was cheap and the destructive impacts of auto-centric planning were less well understood.

It’s especially discouraging to see those old-fashioned attitudes prevailing in greater Portland, which enjoys a reputation as the country’s most progressive transportation city. The fact that the $3-plus billion mega-bridge project known as the Columbia River Crossing remains a regional transportation priority is a testament to the pervasive grip of highway-building interests.

Just yesterday, this “highway boondoggle in disguise” passed another milestone when it was given environmental clearance from U.S. DOT, opening the way for land acquisition and construction. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced yesterday that the project has been granted a “record of decision,” a disappointing endorsement from an administration that has made “livability” a key issue.

Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff even praised the project as a break from carbon-intensive traditions, saying, “This is the type of forward-leaning project that will greatly benefit the entire region well into the future.”

It’s true that the project does include a transit component. About $800 million will be spent on light rail through this corridor between Portland and suburban Vancouver, Washington. But project opponents like David Osborn, head of the community group Stop the CRC, point out that a much greater share of the money will be spent widening the highway to 10 lanes and adding a number of interchanges. This is fundamentally at odds with Portland’s professed emphasis on environmental stewardship and sustainability, Osborn told Streetsblog in April.

“If we build transportation infrastructure that supports single-occupancy-vehicles, it will increase low-density sprawl,” he said. “There’s a tremendous amount of opposition to this project in the community.”

Joe Cortright, a consultant with Impresa and one of the project’s most vocal opponents, says he is disappointed but not surprised by the U.S. DOT announcement. “This has been clearly in the pipeline for some time,” he said. “It reflects kind of the internal consensus of the state DOTs.”

But he added that the federal government has yet to award the CRC any funding — and the project plan assumes a $1.2 billion contribution from the federal government. Nor has either state DOT committed any money, he said. He added that legal challenges to the environmental impact statement were likely forthcoming.

One thing that I suspect plays a role in the politics around this is the fact that there is high sales tax in Washington but no state income tax, and visa versa in Oregon, which leads to economically “strategic” commuting and shopping by many residents of Vancouver, WA.

Portland Ex-Pat

Commuting between Vancouver and North Portland has something to do with this project, but it’s also clear that I-5 in that area is a tremendously important artery, and an updated bridge is necessary for river traffic on the Columbia River as well. There are a lot of issues to balance here.

Bjorn Warloe

Please stop refering to this project as a mega bridge. While the bridge is one part of the project it is only a small part of a massive freeway expansion that is being sold by PR folks who have spent millions of dollars to try to convince people that this is a bridge replacement. It isn’t, most of the cost and most of the impact will be from the free expansion that stretches miles from the river.

Jason

The ROD approval was a necessary step, but it’s unclear what will initially be funded, other than the light rail and bridge. There’s not enough money being put forward by either state to see the project built in its entirety.